Helping the people of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island with Social Security Disability

DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patient also Suffering from Morbid Obesity, Chemical Sensitivities, and Asthma: Fully Favorable Social Security Disability Decision

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patient also Suffering from Morbid Obesity, Chemical Sensitivities, and Asthma: Fully Favorable Social Security Disability Decision

Disabilities: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, chemical sensitivities, and obesity

Notice of Decision: Fully Favorable

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR): Manchester, New Hampshire

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After careful consideration of the entire record, I make the following findings:

1. The claimant's date last insured is December 31, 2012.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 16, 2008, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.).

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), morbid obesity, chemical sensitivities, and asthma (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

5. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) but with no exposure to fumes, odors, gases, dust, or temperature extremes.

In making this finding, I considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and 416.929 and SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p, I have also considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-6p and 06-3p.

The claimant is a 52 year old woman whose medical record documents a long history of COPD, asthma, and a sensitivity to chemicals. As a result of these conditions, the claimant credibly reports extreme difficulty breathing, particularly when exposed to perfumes, and chemical irritants (Exhibit 11B-2). By way of background, she first developed symptoms of asthma around September 2003, and sometime in 2004, she developed COPD (Exhibit IF, 5F, 8F, I5F). Despite her conditions, prior to the claimant's alleged onset date, she was able to continue working as evidenced by her strong work history (Exhibit 3D). However, the claimant reports that her condition progressively worsened, and she was forced to stop working in 2008. This allegation is well supported by objective testing and acceptable diagnostic techniques. For example, in March 2004, the claimant had a forced expiratory volume (FEV1) of 84 percent indicting mild COPD, but by March 2010, her FEV1 revealed only 65 percent of her predicted score (Exhibit 1F and 19F-18). Unfortunately, the claimant's asthma and sensitivity to chemical irritants have not been responsive to allergy medications, and her COPD has continued to worsen (Exhibit 1F, 2F, 5F). Further contributing to the claimant's breathing difficulties is morbid obesity. The record reveals that she is five feet one inch and weighs approximately 270 pounds with a body mass index of 51 (Exhibit 11B-2).

I find that the claimant's testimony is credible and consistent with the medical evidence of record. In particular, I note the medical source opinion of treating physician... that documents the claimant's symptoms and indicates that she is limited to a less than sedentary exertional capacity (Exhibit 20F-4). He has been the claimant's primary care physician for over five and a half years, and therefore has a longitudinal understanding of her conditions (Exhibit 20F-2). Since his opinion is well supported by the record, I give his opinion controlling weight.

After considering the evidence of the record, I find that the claimant's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, and that the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are generally credible.

The State agency medical consultants' physical assessments are given little weight because another medical opinion is more consistent with the record as a whole and evidence received at the hearing level shows that the claimant is more limited than determined by the State agency consultants.

However, the State agency psychological consultant's mental assessment is given great weight because it is consistent with the record as a whole.

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and
416.965).

The demands of the claimant's past relevant work exceed the residual functional capacity.

7. The claimant was an individual closely approaching advanced age on the established disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in
English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).

9. The claimant's acquired job skills do not transfer to other occupations within the
residual functional capacity defined above (20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968).

10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are no jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1566, 416.960(c), and 416.966).

In determining whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made, I must consider the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. If the claimant can perform all or substantially all of the demands at a given level of exertion, the medical-vocational rules direct a conclusion of either "disabled" or "not disabled" depending upon the claimant's specific vocational profile (SSR 83-11).

Even if the claimant had the residual functional capacity for the full range of sedentary work, considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience, a finding of "disabled" would be directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 201.14.

11. The claimant has been under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act since October 16, 2008, the alleged onset date of disability (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g).

DECISION

Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on October 12, 2009, the claimant has been disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act since October 16, 2008.

Based on the application for supplemental security income filed on November 10, 2009, the claimant has been disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act since October 16, 2008.

The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for authorizing supplemental security income will advise the claimant regarding the nondisability requirements for these payments and, if the claimant is eligible, the amount and the months for which payment will be made.